in
Paquotte P. (ed.), Mariojouls C. (ed.), Young J. (ed.).
Seafood market studies for the introduction of new aquaculture products Zaragoza : CIHEAM
Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; n. 59 2002
pages 265-288
Article available on lin e / Article dispon ible en lign e à l’adresse :
--- http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?ID PD F=2600098
--- To cite th is article / Pou r citer cet article
--- Millán J.A. MASMAN AP cou n try report: Spain . In : Paquotte P. (ed.), Mariojouls C. (ed.), Young J.
(ed.). Seafood market studies for the introduction of new aquaculture products. Zaragoza : CIHEAM, 2002.
p. 265-288 (Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; n. 59)
---
http://www.ciheam.org/
http://om.ciheam.org/
0$60$1$3FRXQWU\UHSRUW 6SDLQ
-$0LOOiQ
Department of Agricultural Economics, Polytechnic University of Madrid, ETSIA, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
6800$5< ±This text contains a description of seafood consumption in Spain, using both the apparent consumption approach and the Food Consumption Survey by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
.H\ZRUGV Spain, fishery, aquaculture, seafood, supply, consumption.
5(680(±5DSSRUWQDWLRQDOGDQVOHFDGUHGH0$60$1$3(VSDJQH&HWH[WHSUpVHQWHODGHVFULSWLRQGHOD FRQVRPPDWLRQGHSURGXLWVGHODSrFKHGDQVO(VSDJQHSDUODPpWKRGRORJLHGHODFRQVRPPDWLRQDSSDUHQWHHW SDUO(QTXrWHGHOD&RQVRPPDWLRQ$OLPHQWDLUHGX0LQLVWqUHSRXUO$JULFXOWXUHOD3rFKHHWO$OLPHQWDWLRQ
0RWVFOpV(VSDJQHSrFKHDTXDFXOWXUHSURGXLWVGHODPHURIIUHFRQVRPPDWLRQ
6WDWLVWLFDOPHWKRGRORJ\HYDOXDWLRQ
Critical assessment and methodological description of statistical sources of information
The first objective of this report is the collection of data in order to evaluate national seafood human consumption, using the apparent consumption approach (Production + Imports – Exports).
There are very important difficulties in the availability of production data for Spain.
Traditionally, the length of the Spanish coast, the large working fishing fleet and the range of potential landing points all constitute considerable structural problems for establishing an efficient system of fishery statistics. Moreover, three different peripheral agencies of central government have collected landing data. Despite the former difficulties, the system has been working for many years.
However, according to the opinion of officers of the Spanish Bureau of Fisheries Statistics in MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), an informal analysis suggests that the very detailed older series of Spanish landed fish until 1986 are underestimated, probably. More recently, the existence of separate institutions for fisheries in the Spanish regions (Autonomous Communities) has exacerbated the problems of collecting production data. As a result, there are not official statistics of catch data from Spain about production (catches or landings), since 1993.
In a not-official way, and not available, there are some elaboration of catches and series of landed fish for 1992-1995. There is some work in progress in order to fill the deficiencies of the Spanish fisheries statistics. Statistics on the catches and values for the more recent years are being prepared currently according to EUROSTAT methodology. The main consequence is that there is not any data of official Spanish origin. EUROSTAT and the other international fishery organisations have not received catch data from the Spanish authorities for 1994 and subsequent years. Due to this situation, there is currently a sanction procedure towards Spain. In order to complete tables in the EUROSTAT Yearbooks in the first years, FAO estimates for these missing data have been used. Although his practice seems discontinuous in the more recent years, it suggests a practical way to handle coherent production data.
The Spanish situation is entirely different with respect to aquaculture data. There are collected and available data on production and value since mid-80s. Spain provides data for aquaculture to the
several international organisations. In general, the agreement between the original Spanish data and the FAO data is almost perfect. However, some differences appear in the EUROSTAT statistics (in the CRONOS database in electronic format). In some cases we have observed some discrepancies with respect to the Spanish original sources that are errors (mussels production, particularly in 1994).
The Spanish Bureau of Fisheries Statistics in MAPA disposes of trade statistics provided by the Spanish Office on Trade in the Ministry of Economy. The task consists of the harmonisation of fisheries trade statistics with the catches or landed statistics. For this reason, it seems better the use of trade data recorded in a coherent way with the production data. This leads again to the FAO database. Fisheries statistics in FAO are usually obtained from national reporting offices and, when possible, verified from other sources. Estimates are produced when data are lacking or are considered unreliable. The statistics are stored in databases and disseminated through publications and electronic media and are also available through the FAO Internet site. As a result of our discussion of the Spanish official statistics in MAPA, the conclusion is that the statistics presented by FAO are own estimations of the Statisticians and Fisheries Data Officers in FAO (FIDI), since 1989, in general. This point is confirmed in our analysis of data in the following Section.
There are three main ways of reading the FAO statistics. First, it is FAOSTAT of WAICENT, in a second place the elaborated data in the FOOD BALANCE SHEETS, and, finally more powerful and detailed system of downloadable fisheries statistics in FISHSTAT (FISHPLUS). However, we have observed that the first two systems and the third one are not equivalent immediately. FAOSTAT (WAICENT) is oriented towards food balance sheets, although at a very aggregate level, and including aquaculture production. The database on fishery commodities – production and trade – in FISHPLUS contains statistics on the annual production of fishery commodities and imports and exports (including re-exports) of fishery commodities and commodity description (including processing method) in terms of volume and value from 1976. Data for aquaculture production appears in a separate database.
Justification of selected sources
As the only practical choice, the approach followed in this report is relying on FAO data. FAOSTAT presents complete aggregate data until 1997. FISHPLUS covers a wider variety of species and presentations. This seems an advantage, but it is misleading. When analysing the statistics for a particular species, it is noted that an unknown proportion of the catches for that species have been reported under a generic or order name, or even more roughly as "marine fishes not elsewhere reported". This is valid even for the main species of interest in Spain (as hakes). In these circumstances the catch data presented by individual species items are likely to be underestimated.
The data from FISHPLUS, even revised, corrected, and filtered, are highly unreliable.
Thus it seems more reliable the grouping in WAICENT, despite data since 1990 is estimate (see the following Section). Data relates to nominal catch of fish, crustaceans and molluscs. Catches of fish, crustaceans and molluscs are expressed in live weight. Moreover, using WAICENT data for the calculation of apparent consumption presents the advantage of previous filtering for internal consistency with trade data. For the same reason, trade data are from FAO. In addition, using in a systematic way the FAO data, we do not have to further complicate the issue of converting factors, because catches of fish, crustaceans and molluscs are expressed in live weight (although using several conversion factors).
On the other hand, it is not possible the identification of fish with food consumption as final destination or for feed or other uses, using the data in WAICENT (both primary and processed). Given that the main objective is the identification of apparent consumption, both the domestic supply and the
"apparent food consumption" are presented. First, we adopt the apparent consumption methodology to the data. In the second approach, "feed" and "other uses" in the FOOD BALANCE SHEETS are subtracted of the domestic supply. Other elements, as "waste", "stock changes" or "food processing", are discarded. Thus, the final data present both "domestic supply" and "apparent food consumption".
3URGXFWLRQDQGWRWDOVXSSO\RIDTXDWLFIRRG Total production by capture fisheries
Shortages in stocks of fish in traditional fisheries, the reduced area of fisheries in Spanish waters, and the very important fish consumption in Spain force to the Spanish fleet to operate in long-distance waters. Cod, hake and frozen fish in South Africa and South America (Atlantic); factory-ships in United Kingdom and Ireland, the Caribbean, South America and Central Africa (Atlantic Ocean); frozen crustaceans in Central Africa and South Africa, and cephalopods in North Africa; tuna from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and some from the Pacific. However, many vessels still fish (fresh fish) in domestic waters: (i) whitefish, such as hake, megrim, monk, seabream and wedge sole; (ii) shellfish, such as shrimp; (iii) cephalopods, such as squid, cuttlefish and octopus; and (iv) bluefish, such as sardine, anchovy, mackerel and tuna.
We use data from FAO WAICENT, as justified in the previous section. Thus, production statistics include aquaculture. This kind of data is for 7RWDO SURGXFWLRQ RI DTXDWLF IRRG. However, we can analyse some results because FAO fisheries statistics also offer the possibility of a more detailed analysis of production by several species groups, including data for 1998, and taking into account that aquaculture production in Spain is important only for few species.
Due to the fact that these statistics are estimated following a different methodology than those for the supply sheets in FAO WAICENT, we can compare several differences in the sub totals since 1989, the last year of official data from the Spanish Government. The data for main species groups are presented in Table 1. The data from FAO WAICENT used in Table 1 are presented in italics, for comparison. In the 90s the subtotals differ from those of FAO WAICENT, in some case by a large extent. It is difficult the identification of the different results. Errors in classification could be the explanation in some cases, because the difference in total marine fish or total production is lesser than for some subcategories. However, it seems that it is not a reasonable explanation for the differences in crustaceans, as an example. With these limitations in mind, Table 1 shows the evolution of fresh fish species at a more detailed level.
No value or price data is available. It is very probable that economic value has risen for two basic reasons: firstly, much of the catch is made up of species of high quality or in great demand and, secondly, fishery product prices are moving continuously upwards. Premium species such as hake, cephalopods and shellfish help raise the overall catch value. However, it is unclear whether this growth has happened in constant prices, too.
Total production by aquaculture
Spain is well conditioned for aquaculture developments based on potential in coasts and seas (supply factors) and the preference of the Spanish consumer for seafood products (demand factors).
However, it seems that Spain is not developing its potential for aquaculture production. In 1990, in live weight, the Spanish aquaculture production is 18.6% of Western Europe aquaculture (European Union, Norway and Iceland), with 4.6% for fish and 28.4% for molluscs, given the importance of mussels. In 1997, the figures are 15.4% in total (4.5% for fish, 27.8% for molluscs). In value (¼ LQ 1990, the Spanish aquaculture is 12.3% of Western Europe aquaculture (4.4% for fish, 27.5% for molluscs); in 1997, 7.1% in total (4.5% for fish, 16.2% for molluscs). It is remarkable the impact of the low price of mussels. Thus, although still among the main aquaculture producers in Europe, the Spanish share is declining.
Spanish aquaculture is highly concentrated in few species. Ten species account for 99.5% of total aquaculture production in Spain: mussel, rainbow trout, oyster, grooved carpet shell, common edible cockle, gilthead seabream, red crayfish, turbot, European seabass, and salmon. Moreover, mussel and rainbow trout jointly share more than 80% of total production. Excluding mussel, marine aquaculture is 60% molluscs, 30% fish, and 10% crustaceans. Today, Spanish aquaculture is best framed within three main activities:
(i) Great volume traditional aquaculture, firmly established in mussel farming. This activity is increasing with other molluscs, with modern techniques but in the same geographical area.
(ii) Continental aquaculture, mainly rainbow trout.
(iii) Modern industrial aquaculture, in coexistence with more traditional practices, in elder high- valued species: gilthead seabream, European seabass, and turbot.
Table 1. Production – volume (1000 t) (FAO FISHSTAT)
1988 1989 1990 1996 1997 1998 Flounders, soles 38.5 36.2 21.3 39.4 50.9 49.9 Cods, hakes, haddocks 362.6 328.3 207.7 183.2 173.8 176.2
Redfishes 39.6 54.2 52.7 40.6 50.5 51.9
Sharks, rays, etc. 16.7 21.4 14.2 19.0 96.9 90.0
Total 457.3 440.2 295.9 282.2 372.1 368.0
'HPHUVDOPDULQHILVK Jacks, mullets 76.1 68.6 56.4 50.6 65.1 61.3 Sardines, anchovies 302.5 293.1 268.6 268.8 235.6 237.0 Tunas, bonitos 263.0 272.2 262.8 268.5 253.8 210.4
Mackerels 32.1 25.0 27.7 22.6 23.5 21.9
Total 673.8 658.8 615.5 610.4 578.0 530.7
3HODJLFPDULQHILVK
Miscell. marine fish 53.7 32.3 42.7 69.7 45.5 75.8
2WKHUPDULQHILVK
Total marine fish 1184.7 1131.4 954.1 962.3 995.6 974.5
7RWDOPDULQHILVK
Freshwater fishes 5.5 4.5 5.7 4.2 4.2 4.2
Diadromous fishes 19.4 21.2 21.6 28.3 32.5 33.5
Trouts 19.2 21.1 21.3 28.0 32.1 33.0
Total 24.9 25.8 27.3 32.4 36.7 37.6
)UHVKZDWHUGLDGURPRXV Freshwater crustaceans 5.4 3.5 5.1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Crabs 1.5 1.0 1.1 4.6 11.9 11.5
Lobsters 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0
Shrimps, prawns 12.9 20.1 19.0 25.3 27.9 27.8 Miscell. marine crustaceans 12.3 4.2 4.8 1.6 1.4 1.5
Total 35.4 31.5 32.3 35.9 45.7 45.3
&UXVWDFHDQV
Squids, cuttlefish, octopus 90.6 124.6 103.5 115.1 84.9 72.7
&HSKDORSRGV
Oysters 3.3 3.3 2.9 4.0 3.8 4.0
Mussels 245.9 194.5 173.3 188.5 189.0 261.3
Scallops, pectens 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.6
Clams, cockles 8.0 9.3 7.9 16.9 23.2 22.0
Miscell. marine molluscs 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.7 2.1 1.5
Total 258.5 207.5 185.3 212.0 218.8 289.3
2WKHUPROOXVFV
Total fish 1594.1 1520.8 1302.5 1357.8 1381.7 1419.4
7RWDOILVKFDWFK
For aquaculture data, there are two important sources: Spanish official statistics and FAO (FISHPLUS). Although not identical, there is a close similarity between the sources. Unexpectedly, EUROSTAT data present several errors. We use the Spanish data. Table 2 presents production data
for selected years, including the more recent available, in order to appreciate the evolution of fish crops.
Table 2. Aquaculture production – volume (t) (MAPA)
Marine 1988 1993 1997 1998
Fish 514 4737 7807 10826
Seabass 29 370 511 936
Turbot 97 1584 2125 1969
Gilthead seabream 160 2015 3969 4933
Sole 0 12 19 12
Tuna 47 19 173 1959
Eel 31 175 159 217
Salmon 150 562 851 798
Other fish 22 113 155 142
Crustaceans 55 185 247 185
Molluscs 249794 99957 201610 273457 Mussel 243010 90481 188793 261062
Clams 3514 3581 5591 5831
Oysters 3269 2710 3387 3626
Cockle 0 3185 3839 2937
Other molluscs 213 115 382 469
Freshwater 1988 1993 1997 1998
Rainbow trout 17500 19689 29000 30000 Tench 455 400 00168.2 00167.6
Eel 0 0 00160 00130
Other 0 0 00033.4 00101.4
Production of fish, crustaceans and molluscs is expressed in live weight, which is the nominal weight of the aquatic organisms at the time of capture. Among the main results, it is remarkable the recovery in mussels production, after a large decline at the beginning of the 90s. Seabass and gilthead seabream are increasing, but turbot seems stable in the last years. Some new species have grown very quickly (tuna).
The value of aquaculture, converted from Spanish peseta, is reported in millions ¼ XVLQJ appropriate exchange rates in current (nominal) terms, in Table 3. The evolution of values is the combined effect of variation in production and in prices. For the most important species, prices are decreasing, with the only exception of the relatively recent cockle. This can be caused both for technical progress and for the effect of larger quantities on stable demands.
There are a couple of facts of interest to aquaculture production concerning new species: (i) larger increases for several species (tuna or sole) at decreasing although still very high prices; and (ii) there is not an increasing trend in production for those species of relatively low production and increasing prices.
Total production of aquatic food
We use data from FAO WAICENT. Thus, production statistics refer to the quantities of fresh, preserved and processed fishery commodities, utilising catches from commercial fisheries and aquaculture production. Figure 1 shows the evolution in the period 88-97 and Table 4 shows data for 1997. The general trend is stable in the 90s. However, the decline at the end of the 80s is clear.
Table 3. Aquaculture production – value (million ¼IURPRULJLQDO0$3$YDOXHVLQSHVHWDV Marine 1988 1993 1997 1998
Fish 3.44 33.83 55.50 98.95
Seabass 0.12 3.62 6.29 6.27
Turbot 1.38 11.27 17.18 17.40
Gilthead seabream 1.61 14.95 23.53 30.69
Sole 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.13
Tuna 0.00 0.42 4.16 40.27
Eel 0.22 1.37 1.22 1.51
Salmon 0.00 1.84 2.53 2.28
Other fish 0.12 0.25 0.43 0.41
Crustaceans 0.90 1.25 1.76 0.87
Molluscs 119.43 69.80 105.62 148.48 Mussel 78.49 33.21 52.72 92.20
Clams 30.38 25.03 36.94 39.24
Oysters 9.96 6.67 8.38 9.44
Cockle 0.00 4.31 6.59 6.14
Other molluscs 0.60 0.58 1.40 1.11 Total 123.76 104.89 162.88 248.30 Freshwater 1988 1993 1997 1998 Rainbow trout 38.15 39.61 55.77 61.30
Tench 2.65 1.73 1.01 1.00
Eel 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.90
Other 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.22
Total 40.80 41.34 58.15 64.43
Fig. 1. Production – volume (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT).
Total imports-exports of aquatic food
International trade statistics refer to the quantities and values of annual imports and exports (including re-exports when applicable) of fish and fishery products. FAO data are used. For processed foods, the same conversion factors used in FAO are used for each category. Figure 2 show the evolution of imports in volume and Table 5 presents the FAO-WAICENT data for 1997 for the selected groups.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Freshwater &
diadrom fish Demersal fish Pelagic fish Other marine fish
Crustaceans Cephalopods Molluscs excl.
cephalp.
Table 4. Production – volume, 1997 (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT) Volume Trend Freshwater and diadromous fishes 0036.531 Up
Demersal marine fish 0264.118 Stable (90s) Pelagic marine fish 0639.150 Stable Other marine fish 0078.275 Slightly up Total marine fish 0981.543 Stable (90s) Crustaceans 0033.888 Stable
Cephalopods 0078.624 Down
Other molluscs 0210.725 Down Crustaceans and molluscs 0323.237 Down Total fish 1341.311 Stable (90s)
Fig. 2. Imports – volume (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT).
Table 5. Imports – volume, 1997 (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT) Volume Trend Freshwater and diadromous fishes 0033.813 Slightly up Demersal marine fish 0352.772 Up, sharp decline 97 Pelagic marine fish 0730.440 Up
Other marine fish 0253.298 Stable, strong up 97 Total marine fish 1336.510 Up
Crustaceans 0146.296 Stable 90s Cephalopods 0197.948 Slightly up Other molluscs 0075.877 Slightly down Crustaceans and molluscs 0420.121 Slightly down Total fish 1790.443 Up, stable mid 90s
Exports are in Table 6 and Fig. 3. Spanish exports are of minor importance. The break in the marine fish (pelagic and other) series in 1993 suggests the possibility of misclassifications. It is remarkable the importance of imports with respect to exports in a majority of items. Only for the period 89-91 and the category "other marine fish" are export volumes larger than import volumes. Spain is a
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Freshwater &
diadrom fish Demersal fish Pelagic fish Other marine Fish
Crustaceans Cephalopods Molluscs excl.
cephalp.
net importer of fish products, mostly for the processing industry, and this explain the stability of the total fish volume in net trade in the 90s, between 143 and 175 thousand tons of net imports, in 1990 and 1992, respectively.
Table 6. Exports – volume, 1997 (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT) Volume Trend Freshwater and diadromous fishes 008.976 Slightly up Demersal marine fish 123.579 Up, but 97 Pelagic marine fish 415.711 Slightly up Other marine fish 099.912 Up Total marine fish 639.202 Up
Crustaceans 018.143 Slightly up Cephalopods 089.975 Slightly up Other molluscs 070.209 Slightly up Crustaceans and molluscs 178.327 Up
Total fish 826.504 Up
Fig. 3. Exports – volume (1000 t) (FAO WAICENT).
In Table 7, value data for trade complements some interesting information. Although imports are larger than exports in volume for pelagic fish, the converse is true in value. This fact reflects the higher quality of the Spanish exports for some species.
In Table 8, the shares of the different presentations are presented for imports. In general, frozen is the most important presentation for imports in quantity, but not necessarily in volume. However, molluscs (not cephalopods) imports are more valuable frozen. Freshwater fish, is presented mostly fresh and highly valuable.
The shares of the different exports presentations are in Table 9. Frozen is also the most important presentation for imports in quantity, but not necessarily in volume. Cephalopods are exported frozen almost always. Crustaceans exports are mainly conserve, and never frozen.
Apparent consumption of aquatic food
The evolution of the domestic supply is presented in Figs 4 and 5, without comments.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Freshwater &
diadrom fish Demersal fish Pelagic fish Other marine fish
Crustaceans Cephalopods Molluscs excl.
cephalp.
However, the former figures (Domestic supply = Production + Imports – Exports) present seafood consumption including not for food consumption. In the next tables and figures, "feed" and "other uses", have been subtracted, thus giving a measure of apparent consumption for the Concerted Action purposes. Other elements in the food supply data (waste, processing) have been discarded, in spirit with the apparent consumption approach.
Table 7. Imports, exports and net trade (million ¼DGDSWHGIURPYDOXHVLQ)$2:$,&(17
1988 1992 1996 1997
Imports
Freshwater and diadromous fishes 63.13 136.17 148.85 126.91 Demersal marine fish 421.28 657.29 764.79 487.74 Pelagic marine fish 176.43 198.50 285.18 322.48 Other marine fish 132.31 249.14 216.89 416.72 Total marine fish 730.02 1104.93 1266.86 1226.94
Crustaceans 343.08 551.42 648.74 589.87
Cephalopods 178.36 232.76 349.02 415.69
Other molluscs 950.76 1305.32 1596.81 1633.44 Crustaceans and molluscs 1472.19 2089.50 2594.57 2638.99 Total fish 2265.34 3330.60 4010.27 3992.85 Exports
Freshwater and diadromous fishes 5.19 8.39 39.48 55.62 Demersal marine fish 57.76 78.75 226.19 165.59 Pelagic marine fish 243.79 167.86 399.29 479.64 Other marine fish 46.38 72.13 117.46 138.96 Total marine fish 347.94 318.75 742.94 784.18
Crustaceans 21.46 29.61 89.36 72.06
Cephalopods 106.71 121.93 251.28 233.54
Other molluscs 234.99 254.09 476.04 427.19
Crustaceans and molluscs 363.16 405.63 816.68 732.79 Total fish 716.29 732.76 1599.09 1572.59 Exports-imports
Freshwater and diadromous fishes –57.94 –127.78 –109.37 –71.30 Demersal marine fish –363.52 –578.54 –538.60 –322.15 Pelagic marine fish 67.37 –30.64 114.11 157.16 Other marine fish –85.93 –177.01 –99.43 –277.77 Total marine fish –382.08 –786.18 –523.92 –442.76
Crustaceans –321.61 –521.81 –559.39 –517.81
Cephalopods –71.65 –110.83 –97.74 –182.15
Other molluscs –715.77 –1051.24 –1120.77 –1206.25 Crustaceans and molluscs –1109.03 –1683.88 –1777.89 –1906.20 Total fish –1549.04 –2597.84 –2411.18 –2420.25
Figure 6 shows the evolution of total apparent seafood consumption by categories. It is remarkable the changing ranks for demersal and pelagic. A large quantity of pelagic fish is used for seed. The trends are similar than those for domestic supply, in general, indicating that an increasing or stable pattern of consumption follows a decline in the 80s until the beginning of the 90s for the main fish groups. Crustaceans and molluscs seem stable.
Figure 7 presents the evolutions of the apparent seafood consumption per capita, for the two main groups of "fish" and "crustaceans and molluscs". It is remarkable the increasing trend of fish consumption per capita. It is due to a growing consumption of fish products and a stable consumption of crustaceans and molluscs in the 90s, after a decline for all categories at the end of the 80s.
Table 8. Imports – presentation shares (%) in volume and value (adapted from values in FAO WAICENT)
Quantities Values
Fresh Frozen Conserve Fresh Frozen Conserve Demersal
1988 15.9 66.5 17.7 36.7 45.1 18.2
1992 19.3 62.1 18.7 46.9 36.4 16.7
1996 17.5 65.0 17.5 40.1 44.2 15.7
1997 11.7 65.0 23.4 28.2 51.1 20.8
Pelagic
1988 20.4 71.4 08.2 16.6 67.8 15.7
1992 25.7 56.1 18.1 30.0 46.6 23.4
1996 21.0 59.7 19.3 30.4 44.6 25.0
1997 19.1 62.5 18.3 26.8 51.4 21.8
Other marine
1988 15.7 54.4 30.0 26.0 38.8 35.2
1992 21.0 41.4 37.6 31.2 33.1 35.7
1996 27.0 41.2 31.8 34.2 31.8 33.9
1997 30.6 56.1 13.3 47.9 34.4 17.7
Freshwater
1988 74.9 16.3 08.8 89.1 05.3 05.5 1992 66.8 29.0 04.2 84.2 10.8 04.9 1996 48.0 47.7 04.3 68.5 26.4 05.2 1997 62.1 31.4 06.5 80.3 15.0 04.7 Crustaceans
1988 14.1 81.7 04.2 10.8 87.2 01.9 1992 10.1 84.3 05.5 11.5 86.1 02.5
1996 09.4 82.0 08.6 11.5 84.1 04.4
1997 09.8 86.8 03.5 12.1 86.7 01.2
Cephalopods
1988 04.3 95.7 00.0 07.7 92.3 00.0
1992 08.1 91.9 00.0 11.9 88.1 00.0
1996 06.8 93.2 00.0 10.6 89.4 00.0
1997 04.2 95.8 00.0 07.1 92.9 00.0
Other molluscs
1988 17.1 25.3 57.6 05.5 77.8 16.7
1992 14.1 42.9 43.0 05.7 78.2 16.1
1996 10.5 57.3 32.2 03.7 85.8 10.5
1997 09.6 63.6 26.8 03.4 88.3 08.3
1DWLRQDOVHDIRRGPDUNHWLQIRUPDWLRQ
Description of the national aquatic food market from landings or farming production to consumer
Traditional retailing is the most important channel of fish distribution in Spain. However, there is evidence of increasing shares of modern forms. Another important fact is the introduction of new technologies. The main wholesalers know that the Spanish aquaculture sector has not enough size to face the Spanish demand continuously. Thus, many Spanish firms prefer to invest abroad rather than in Spain. Many products are from distant countries, and delivered by plane in fillet form or in other
presentations, being fresh fish the ideal pattern. In any case, marketing channels have evolved as developments in traditional institutions, or, in hyper and supermarkets, imitating traditional retailers as closely as they can. This situation is changing, and traditional retailers are using some of the developments in modern sellers (frozen, pre-cooked, etc.).
Table 9. Exports – presentation shares (%) in volume and value (adapted from values in FAO WAICENT)
Quantities Values
Fresh Frozen Conserve Fresh Frozen Conserve Demersal
1988 03.1 67.2 29.8 10.6 45.7 43.7
1992 03.1 83.9 13.0 08.3 73.3 18.4
1996 05.3 84.8 09.9 16.7 71.2 12.1
1997 03.2 79.4 17.4 09.8 71.6 18.6
Pelagic
1988 10.8 71.8 17.4 11.9 47.6 40.5
1992 10.4 64.3 25.3 23.7 29.9 46.4
1996 19.8 51.1 29.1 24.0 30.3 45.7
1997 13.9 60.9 25.2 22.1 35.3 42.6
Other marine
1988 33.5 28.9 37.6 59.5 13.5 27.0
1992 55.4 31.7 12.9 42.6 35.9 21.6
1996 12.9 61.6 25.5 19.7 60.4 19.9
1997 10.7 78.1 11.2 25.2 57.4 17.4
Freshwater
1988 17.7 32.8 49.5 50.7 33.5 15.8
1992 31.7 64.4 04.0 64.8 29.4 05.9
1995 37.2 57.8 05.0 59.3 36.9 03.8
1996 55.7 39.8 04.5 73.6 23.9 02.5
1997 46.6 50.1 03.3 80.3 17.7 02.0
Crustaceans
1988 01.0 00.0 99.0 07.8 00.0 92.2
1992 00.9 00.0 99.1 02.5 00.0 97.5
1996 01.3 00.0 98.7 04.3 00.0 95.7
1997 01.1 00.0 98.9 03.9 00.0 96.1
Cephalopods
1988 02.0 98.0 00.0 02.3 97.7 00.0
1992 00.2 99.8 00.0 00.1 99.9 00.0
1996 02.4 97.6 00.0 03.0 97.0 00.0
1997 03.4 96.6 00.0 03.8 96.2 00.0
Other molluscs
1988 26.1 15.3 58.6 07.0 64.1 28.9
1992 13.0 30.9 56.1 04.0 66.5 29.5
1996 12.4 34.1 53.5 02.6 77.5 19.9
1997 13.6 33.8 52.7 02.9 78.5 18.6
Fig. 4. Domestic supply – volume (1000 t) (following FAO FOOD SUPPLY DATA).
Fig. 5. Domestic supply per capita (kg/person) (following FOOD SUPPLY DATA and INE).
Fig. 6. Apparent consumption – volume (1000 t) (following FAO FOOD SUPPLY DATA).
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Freshwater &
diadrom fish Demersal fish Pelagic fish Other marine fish
Crustaceans Cephalopods Molluscs excl.
cephalp.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total fish Crust. & molluscs Total seafood
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Freshwater &
diadrom fish Demersal fish Pelagic fish Other marine fish
Crustaceans Cephalopods Molluscs excl.
cephalp.
Fig. 7. Apparent consumption per capita of seafood products (kg/person) (following FOOD SUPPLY DATA and INE).
The main institution in seafood distribution in Spain is MERCASA. MERCASA was established as a state owned joint-stock company held by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA) and by the Ministry of Finance, and acts as a part of the Spanish Government Food Policy. The MERCAS network develops the wholesale commercial function: to concentrate a complete offer of products and guaranty complementary transport functions, storage, grading, labelling, presentation, logistics, etc. The total produce traded in the MERCAS network is 50% of fish and seafood consumed in Spain (60% of fruits and vegetables), increasing to more than 90% when we consider the influence areas near the Food Distribution Centres. MERCASA has promoted and managed with the Municipalities, a nation-wide network of 22 food distribution and logistical centres known as MERCAS.
The MERCAS network covers the national territory and develops wholesale trade, with new and modern formulas. The main MERCA are MERCAMADRID (about 34% of the volume of the network activity), MERCABARNA (Barcelona, 19.5%) and MERCAVALENCIA (14.5%). MERCAMADRID, the wholesale market in Madrid with more than 150 firms operating in, distributes 14% of fish consumption in Spain and 15.5% of fresh fish in Spain. The area of influence of MERCAMADRID is by far larger than the city and metropolitan area, affecting even to certain areas in Portugal, and being equivalent to a "sea port" in inner Spain.
In the retail sector, MERCASA has developed and manages 16 shopping centres and collaborates with Municipalities in the modernising of Municipal Retail Markets. In Spain, municipal retail markets channel 50% of perishable goods. The municipal retail market is a traditional form of trade in Spain and there is the agreement that they have a promising future by adapting their structures to current shopping and consumer demand.
Fish consumption: The MAPA food consumption survey
The main source of information on seafood consumption surveys is by MAPA. The Food Consumption Survey of MAPA is not a task of MAPA itself, but of private companies. This Survey begins in 1987 and the methodology has changed several times, because of changing companies.
However, there is an effort by MAPA in showing homogeneous information as if there is not any break in series. The results are available monthly with a small delay of a few months. An important point with this survey is the detailed demographic information. The annual results of the Consumption Panel of MAPA are used both for analysis of trends in fish consumption and the identification of regional and demographic seafood consumption patterns, later in this report.
The general evolution of total fish consumption is shown in Fig. 8 (in per capita terms the graph is similar in trends). There is a clear decreasing trend with frozen fish, although there is a recovery in the last years, and an increase in fish conserves. The consumption of fresh fish and the consumption of shellfish seem stable, after growth and decline in mid-90s and early 90s, respectively.
0 10 20 30 40 50
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total fish Crust. & molluscs Total seafood
Fig. 8. Evolution of total fish consumption (1000 t) (MAPA).
Figure 9 shows the evolution of the consumption of the main species and presentations. It is remarkable the fall in hake consumption, the main group of the Spanish fish consumption, both fresh and frozen, and the small decline of fresh sardines in the last years. Given a stable total consumption, this fact suggests species substitution in consumption. It is very important the increase in the consumption of tuna conserves.
Fig. 9. Evolution of consumption. Main species and presentations (1000 t) (MAPA).
The consumption of seafood in Spain is 1998 is shown in Table 10 in total volume. The table gives a detailed presentation of consumption in-home and out-of-home (restoration and institutions) and by type of preservation and species. These characteristics are explained later, showing the evolution of the main groups.
Perhaps, the importance of the consumption is better shown per capita and in share form, as in Table 11. Seafood consumption per capita in Spain is 30.3 kg: 14 kg of fresh fish, 4 kg of frozen fish, 3.9 kg of fish conserves, and 8.4 kg of crustaceans and molluscs.
As Table 11 indicates, Fish consumption is very diversified by species in Spain, but sardines and anchovies (24% of total fresh fish consumption) and hakes (21%) dominate. Hakes clearly are also the main consumption in frozen form (56% of frozen consumption). 54% of fish conserves is tuna. The consumption of crustaceans and molluscs is mainly in fresh form (64%) followed by frozen form (33%), being other presentations less than 3% of crustaceans and molluscs consumption.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Fresh fish Frozen fish
Conserves Crust. & moll.
0 50 100 150 200
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Fresh hakes Frozen hakes
Fresh sardines Tuna conserves
Table 10. Seafood consumption – quantity, 1998 (million kg) (MAPA)
Home Restoration Institutions Total
Total 895.4 273.6 37.0 1206.0
Fish 553.3 133.5 30.0 716.7
Fresh fish 446.7 101.9 9.5 558.1
Hakes 98.4 20.4 1.6 120.3
Sardines and anchovies 100.8 30.2 1.6 132.6
Sole 40.7 6.8 0.3 47.8
Salmon 23.0 5.8 0.5 29.2
Cod 15.6 3.5 0.3 19.4
Tuna 18.6 3.7 1.3 23.6
Trout 15.4 4.2 0.6 20.2
Other 134.3 27.3 3.4 164.9
Frozen fish 106.5 31.6 20.5 158.6
Hakes 61.6 14.9 13.1 89.6
Sole 8.5 4.5 1.5 14.5
Salmon 0.9 0.8 0.3 2.0
Cod 2.4 2.5 0.8 5.7
Other 33.1 8.9 4.8 46.8
Preserves 122.5 31.5 2.2 156.1
Sardines and anchovies 11.2 4.4 0.3 16.0
Tuna 66.8 16.3 1.4 84.4
Other 44.5 10.8 0.4 55.7
Crustaceans and molluscs 219.6 108.7 4.8 333.1
Fresh 159.7 53.8 0.7 214.2
Cooked 6.4 1.6 0.2 8.2
Frozen 53.5 53.3 3.4 110.2
Home consumption vs. catering sector
Total consumption of seafood at home goes down at a higher rate than total seafood consumption.
The decline is particularly important for frozen fish, because the other three groups increase since 1990 until mid-90s. However, the share of home consumption remains at the same level than a decade earlier for fish conserves only. The evolution of fish consumption in home is shown in Fig. 10, for the main groups.
Pie-charts for total seafood consumption by destination in 1987 and 1998 is presented in Fig. 11.
Fish consumption per capita has decreased only slightly, but restoration consumption is substituted for home consumption remarkably.
In summary, consumption increases for all main groups in restoration, lesser for fish conserves.
The largest growth is for crustaceans and molluscs. Consumption in institutions grows in the aggregate at a similar rate than for restoration, but the components of growth are very different.
Institutions consumption increases for all categories except for crustaceans and molluscs (decreasing), being particularly important for frozen fish. A more detailed picture of destinations by types of presentation is presented in the next Subsection.
Breakdown of household seafood consumption by type of preservation
The evolution of the different preservations, and the main species or presentations appear in the previous Figs 8 to 10 and Tables 10 and 11. In this Section, the distribution of each group of preservation is presented according to consumption destinations in 1987 and 1998. First, the pie
charts for the different groups by destination type are presented. However, it must be taken into account that the evolution is not monotonic, as shown in Fig. 10 for in-home consumption, and that focus in 1987 and 1988 hides several patterns of evolution in the period (see the paper by Millán about out-of-home consumption, in this volume).
Table 11. Seafood consumption per capita (kg) and location (%) – 1998 (MAPA)
Per capita Home Restoration Institutions
Total 30.31 74.24 22.69 3.07
Fish 18.01 77.19 18.62 4.19
Fresh fish 14.03 80.04 18.26 1.71
Hakes 3.02 81.74 16.95 1.30
Sardines and anchovies 3.33 76.04 22.78 1.18
Sole 1.20 85.08 14.21 0.70
Salmon 0.73 78.61 19.85 1.53
Cod 0.49 80.26 18.01 1.73
Tuna 0.59 78.64 15.67 5.69
Trout 0.51 76.42 20.81 2.77
Other 4.15 81.41 16.55 2.04
Frozen fish 3.99 67.18 19.90 12.93
Hakes 2.25 68.75 16.62 14.62
Sole 0.36 58.89 31.06 10.05
Salmon 0.05 43.89 39.51 16.60
Cod 0.14 42.09 44.09 13.83
Other 1.18 70.78 18.92 10.30
Fish conserves 3.92 78.47 20.15 1.38
Sardines and anchovies 0.40 70.44 27.43 2.14
Tuna 2.12 79.11 19.27 1.63
Other 1.40 79.80 19.41 0.79
Crustaceans and molluscs 8.37 65.92 32.63 1.45
Fresh 5.38 74.56 25.11 0.33
Cooked 0.21 78.06 19.50 2.44
Frozen 2.77 48.53 1.45 3.09
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Fresh fish Frozen fish Conserves Crust. & moll.
Fig. 10. Evolution of in-home consumption – share (%) (MAPA).
Fig. 11. Total fish consumption – 1998 and 1987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
Fresh fish consumption per capita and by destination follows a similar evolution than total seafood, as shown in Fig. 12. The more remarkable fact is that fresh fish is particularly preferred in home.
Fig. 12. Fresh fish consumption, 1987 and 19987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
Figure 13 clearly indicates the large decline for frozen fish, and mainly in-home consumption. The consumption per capita rises in restoration and institutions.
Fig. 13. Frozen fish consumption, 1998 and 1987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
The pattern is completely different for fish conserves, as Fig. 14 shows. The more remarkable fact is the increase of conserves per capita. Home consumption decreases slightly in share, but is more than double per capita in 1998 than in 1987. The main decline is in institutions.
30.5 kg per capita
HOME 82%
REST.
15%
INST.
3%
30.3 kg per capita
INST.
3%
REST.
23%
HOME 74%
6.6 kg per capita
HOME 84%
REST.
9%
INST.
7%
4 kg per capita
INST.
13%
REST.
20%
HOME 67%
14.2 kg per capita
HOME 87%
REST.
11%
INST.
2%
14 kg per capita
INST.
2%
REST.
18%
HOME 80%
Fig. 14. Fish conserves, 1987 and 1998. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
Figure 15 presents the charts for crustaceans and molluscs in 1998 and 1987. In total, small increase in per capita consumption, but it is due to increase in restoration only. Crustaceans and molluscs consumption decreases in home and institutions. However, it is very important distinguishing between fresh and frozen crustaceans and molluscs. Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the differences.
There is a large increase in per capita consumption for fresh crustaceans and molluscs as Fig. 16 indicates. Even more remarkable, there is an important increase of home consumption, with a decrease in the share of restoration, and the practical disappearance of consumption by institutions.
On the contrary, Fig. 17 shows the remarkable decline in the home consumption of frozen crustaceans and molluscs, and the very important increase in the consumption (almost double) and share of restoration.
Fig. 15. Crustaceans and molluscs, 1998 and 1987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
Fig. 16. Fresh crustaceans and molluscs, 1998 and 1987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
6.6 kg per capita
HOME 84%
REST.
9%
INST.
7%
4 kg per capita
INST.
13%
REST.
20%
HOME 67%
8.4 kg per capita
INST.
1%
REST.
33%
HOME 66%
8 kg per capita
HOME 73%
REST.
25%
INST.
2%
5.4 kg per capita
INST.
0%
REST.
25%
HOME 75%
4.8 kg per capita
HOME 71%
REST.
28%
INST.
1%
Fig. 17. Frozen crustaceans and molluscs, 1998 and 1987. Share (%) by destination (MAPA).
Breakdown of household seafood consumption by household characteristics
There are some interesting socio-demographic factors explaining characteristics of household consumption of seafood, particularly with respect to woman job and age, the presence of children and household size. The fall in seafood consumption in households with children is very pronounced (more than for meat products, as an example). Table 12 indicates that the difference of seafood consumption per capita is more than 11 kg in households with no children than in households with children younger than 6.
Table 12. Households seafood consumption per capita (kg) – children (MAPA)
No children Younger than 6 6 to 15 years old
Seafood 27.57 16.48 18.21
Fish 17.52 09.76 10.71
Fresh fish 14.21 07.84 08.56
Frozen fish 03.31 01.92 02.15
Fish conserves 03.5 02.53 02.77
Molluscs and crustaceans 06.55 04.19 04.73
Fish consumption is also negatively related with woman job and age, being the differences more important in fresh fish. These facts are shown in Tables 13 and 14.
Table 13. Households seafood consumption per capita (kg) – housewife activity (MAPA) Working Not working
Seafood 18.8 23.6
Fish 10.5 14.9
Fresh fish 08.2 12.1
Frozen fish 02.3 02.8
Fish conserves 03.3 03.0 Molluscs and crustaceans 05.0 05.7
Seafood consumption per capita is also inversely related to household size, as Table 15 shows, and to economic status, as Table 16 illustrates.
2.6 kg per capita
HOME 72%
REST.
25%
INST.
3%
2.8 kg per capita
INST.
3%
REST.
48%
HOME 49%
Table 14. Household seafood consumption per capita (kg) – housewife age (MAPA)
< 35 35 to 49 50 to 64 > 65
Seafood 17.1 19.3 26.6 31.2
Fish 09.7 11.2 17.0 21.0
Fresh fish 07.5 09.0 14.1 17.1
Frozen fish 02.2 02.2 03.0 04.0 Fish conserves 03.0 03.0 03.2 03.3 Molluscs and crustaceans 04.5 05.0 06.4 06.9
Table 15. Household seafood consumption per capita (kg) – household size (MAPA)
1 2 3 4 5 +
Seafood 33.34 28.82 23.5 20.57 18.98
Fish 21.6 18.07 14.26 12.7 11.63
Fresh fish 17.43 14.29 11.54 10.34 09.44 Frozen fish 04.17 03.77 02.72 02.35 02.19 Fish conserves 04.22 03.88 03.17 02.87 02.66 Molluscs and crustaceans 07.52 06.87 06.07 05.01 04.69
Table 16. Household seafood consumption per capita (kg) – household status (MAPA)
Low Middle-low Middle Middle-high +
Seafood 26.41 22.24 21.62 22.13
Fish 17.89 14.05 12.93 13.14
Fresh fish 14.33 11.23 10.51 10.65 Frozen fish 03.56 02.82 02.42 02.49 Fish conserves 02.93 02.97 03.22 03.08 Molluscs and crustaceans 05.59 05.22 05.47 05.92
Regional factors of distribution and consumption
There are wide regional differences in seafood consumption in Spain, as shown in Table 17. The largest consumption is in Northwest, followed by Castilla-Leon (inner), and Andalucia. Lesser fish consumption is in Northeast, Centre-South, Levante (east, coastal) and Canary Islands.
Table 17. Household seafood consumption per capita (kg) – geographical area (MAPA)
Total seafood Total fish Fresh fish Frozen fish Conserve Molluscs and crustaceans
Northeast 21.22 12.2 09.47 2.74 3.28 5.74
East 18.94 10.37 07.64 2.73 3.43 5.15
Andalucia 21.83 13.31 10.79 2.52 2.84 5.67
Centre-South 23.66 15.36 12.68 2.68 3.22 5.08 Castilla-Leon 24.98 16.87 14.21 2.67 2.56 5.54
Northwest 28.57 17.72 15.15 2.57 3.08 7.77
North 25.28 17.6 15.12 2.48 2.41 5.27
Canary Islands 15.48 08.72 04.69 4.03 4.22 2.54
Table 18 shows that seafood consumption is larger in urban and populated areas, although it does not grow in metropolitan areas.
Table 18. Household seafood consumption per capita (kg) – habitat (thousands inhabitants) (MAPA)
<2 2 to 10 10 to 100 100 to 500 >500
Seafood 21.85 20.09 22.19 24.36 24.12
Fish 13.83 11.97 13.4 15.37 15.33
Fresh fish 10.69 09.37 10.76 12.76 12.59
Frozen fish 03.14 02.6 02.64 02.61 02.74 Preserves 02.63 03.05 03.17 03.19 03.14 Molluscs and crustaceans 05.39 05.07 05.63 05.8 05.65
Distribution channels: Evolution of the market shares of the main retailers
Table 19 shows the evolution of distribution channels for household consumption. The most relevant characteristics is that following the decline of traditional retailers until mid-90s, favouring super and hypermarkets, the shares seem stable.
Table 19. Seafood distribution shares for household consumption (%) (MAPA)
1987 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998
Traditional 76.7 69.9 48.1 48.8 52.8 52.0
Self-service and supermarket 13.8 19.7 28.3 29.2 26.2 28.3
Hypermarket 01.7 06.0 13.9 12.7 15.3 15.7
Cooperative 00.6 00.8 01.0 01.0 00.4 00.3 Open air 03.4 01.7 03.0 02.5 02.5 02.0
Other 03.8 01.9 05.7 05.8 02.9 01.7
Evolution of food retail price index (total food, seafood, meat, vegetables, etc.)
Figure 18 shows the evolution of the consumer price index and the food component of the index. It is worth noting the general evolution of food prices at a lower rate than inflation. Tables 20 to 22 present a more detailed picture of price evolution by groups of products. It is worth note that these
"prices", taken from MAPA, are "unit values" (= value/quantity) without any price index formula adjustment.
Fig. 18. Inflation (CPI) and food price indexes (base: 1992 = 100) (INE).
75 85 95 105 115 125 135
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
General Food
Table 20. Unit values of main food groups – households (ptas/kg) (MAPA)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 719 729 734 749 740 743
Seafood 708 727 752 782 833 871
Fresh vegetables 151 156 155 163 171 179
Fresh fruit 107 129 137 137 137 140
Total food 227 235 239 242 246 248
Table 21. Unit values of main food groups – restoration (ptas/kg) (MAPA)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 818 831 863 922 954 926
Seafood 871 922 861 976 1062 1053
Fresh vegetables 144 176 174 152 140 154 Fresh fruit 123 144 139 130 121 128
Total food 222 232 248 261 272 286
Table 22. Unit values of main food groups – institutions (ptas/kg) (MAPA)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 562 569 599 574 563 584
Seafood 542 552 534 553 578 601
Fresh vegetables 110 114 129 117 114 119
Fresh fruit 117 120 129 121 116 111
Total food 177 186 204 190 196 197
In general, the highest prices are for restoration, perhaps due to higher quality, and the lowest prices are for institutions. However, household prices for fresh fruits and vegetables are sometimes higher than for restoration.
In Tables 23 to 25, the unit values are divided by the consumer price index, and normalised as indexes based 1993; that is, the evolution of real unit values. It is remarkable the different evolution of some groups for households, restoration or institutions.
Table 23. Real prices of main food groups – households (base: 1993 = 100) (own elaboration following MAPA and INE)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 1.000 0.968 0.931 0.918 0.889 0.876
Seafood 1.000 0.980 0.969 0.973 1.016 1.043 Fresh vegetables 1.000 0.986 0.936 0.951 0.978 1.005 Fresh fruit 1.000 1.151 1.168 1.128 1.106 1.110 Total food 1.000 0.988 0.960 0.939 0.936 0.927
Globally, food prices for institutions grow more than the general price index, being the contrary true for households and institutions. It is remarkable that fresh food and vegetable prices grow more for households. Seafood prices grow more for households in the last years, too.
Table 24. Real prices of main food groups – restoration (base: 1993 = 100) (own elaboration following MAPA and INE)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 1.000 0.970 0.962 0.993 1.007 0.960
Seafood 1.000 1.010 0.902 0.987 1.053 1.025 Fresh vegetables 1.000 1.167 1.102 0.930 0.840 0.907 Fresh fruit 1.000 1.118 1.031 0.931 0.849 0.883 Total food 1.000 0.998 1.019 1.036 1.058 1.093
Table 25. Unit values of main food groups – institutions (base: 1993 = 100) (own elaboration following MAPA and INE)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Meat 1.000 0.966 0.972 0.900 0.865 0.881
Seafood 1.000 0.972 0.899 0.899 0.921 0.940 Fresh vegetables 1.000 0.989 1.070 0.937 0.895 0.918 Fresh fruit 1.000 0.979 1.006 0.911 0.856 0.805 Total food 1.000 1.003 1.051 0.946 0.956 0.944
Levels of income per family and % of household expenditures dedicated to food
The level of expenditure per household is 17.5 thousands ¼LQDQGWKHOHYHORIH[SHQGLWXUH per person is 5.34 thousands ¼DFFRUGLQJWR,1(7KHJURXSVLQ7DEOHDFFRXQWIRUWZRWKLUGVRI total food consumption in 1998, and for almost 75% of households' food consumption, according to the Food Consumption Survey of MAPA. This survey does not report total consumption expenditure.
According to the Continuous Family Budget Survey of the Spanish Bureau of Statistics (INE), home expenditure in food, drinks and tobacco is 22.0% of total expenditure in 1998.
Table 26. Value shares in total food consumption 1998 (MAPA)
Households Restoration Institutions Total Meat and meat products 25.4 16.4 29.2 23.1
Seafood 12.6 12.7 13.3 12.6
Milk and dairy 12.6 05.7 11.3 10.8
Fresh fruits and vegetables 13.0 03.4 10.0 10.4 Bread, cookies, etc. 11.1 04.6 09.0 09.3
&RQFOXGLQJFRPPHQWV
The first objective of this report is the collection of data in order to evaluate national seafood human consumption, using the apparent consumption approach (Production + Imports – Exports).
There are very important difficulties in the availability of production data for Spain. As the only practical choice, the approach followed in this report is relying on FAO data. The Spanish situation is entirely different with respect to aquaculture data. There are collected and available data on production and value for aquaculture since mid-80s.
The analysis of seafood consumption in Spain can be performed better on direct consumption data. The main source of information on seafood consumption is the Food Consumption Survey based on the MAPA panels. This Survey begins in 1987 and although the methodology has changed
several times, there is an effort by MAPA in showing homogeneous information as if there is not any break in the series. An important point with this survey is the detailed demographic information. The annual results of the Consumption Panel of MAPA are used both for analysis of trends in fish consumption and the identification of regional and demographic seafood consumption patterns.
A relevant fact about the evolution of seafood consumption in Spain is that there is not a clear trend in most of the components of consumption. Very probably, it is not a idiosyncratic Spanish trait, but a global characteristic of food consumption. This fact is more remarkable in Spain because seafood consumption is more important and varied in Spain than in other countries.
Many factors influence seafood consumption, as other food consumption and prices, general economic conditions and socio-demographic variables. The analysis of seafood consumption must embody the variation in other variables. An analysis of seafood consumption related to meat consumption, prices, income, and several socio-demographic factors seems the minimum for a careful analysis of seafood consumption. This requires databases with variation in the determinants.
A very detailed but static, unchanged, description is meaningless. In fact, this is not derived from the analysis of particular databases (Spain) but from what are well-known, we supposed, theories of consumer behaviour and very basic data analysis.
